No one’s health was at risk. The Officer closed the distance and placed himself in peril ( if there was any). Your attitude of “I’m going home safe tonight” has gotten innocent people killed. The job is inherently dangerous. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No one’s health was at risk. The Officer closed the distance and placed himself in peril ( if there was any). Your attitude of “I’m going home safe tonight” has gotten innocent people killed. The job is inherently dangerous. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The police in the video were responding to a burglary. The criminal appears to have a bag of loot and was actively resisting arrest. It was their job to close the distance and make the arrest. He tried to talk, he tried the taser, and he did what he had to do to stop her without anyone being killed.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

No one’s health was at risk. The Officer closed the distance and placed himself in peril ( if there was any). Your attitude of “I’m going home safe tonight” has gotten innocent people killed. The job is inherently dangerous. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

We can monday morning this for a while but, you never answered my question. Continuing along your line I guess the officer should have backed off and given the suspect time & space to turn, run and hurt someone else. Or maybe he should have then shot her in the back after she turned & ran ? Or maybe he should have backed up & let someone else do his job for him, or....

If I can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Not sure what exactly you mean by that broad statement but if I'm correct in my understanding, I have been in that kitchen. Heat and all. Enjoy myself, no, but I'm still here. Sometimes people are tasked w things that are unpleasant but must be done. Hopefully you have never been nor ever will be in that 'kitchen' .

Hmmm, an interesting debate on the use of force. This is a mixed case where the officer made two mistakes that I can see. One of the mistakes is at the scene and the other was in his report afterwards.

The shooting would not have been justified under Texas law, as quoted above. The crime committed was burglary of a motor vehicle, not any of the listed offenses justifying deadly force (the burglary in the list specifically refers to 30.02 Burglary, and not section 30.04 Burglary of a vehicle).

I see a problem where the county attorney might be correct in his interpretation of the SCOTUS decisions. The court has said that the shooting must be objectively reasonable at the time the trigger is pulled, based on what the officer knew at the time. At the time the officer pulled the trigger, there was no one in danger. The suspect had backed off from the threats to the officer and the other officer was using de-escalation techniques to keep it under control. The second suspect that was outside was not actively participating in this scene at this time. He had separated from the female suspect and was not threatening anyone else.

In the officer's favor, the female suspect was armed at the time and was not complying with instructions (technically this is different from resisting arrest because there is no force being used against the officer). The officer did try a lesser use of force (Taser) and it failed. There was a second suspect present in the area who could have joined in at any time, even if he wasn't threatening or participating yet. There was also a previous knowledge of the suspect (as can be told by his statement of taking her down like last time).

The most correct answer would have been to use another level of intermediate force. That would be an impact weapon like a nightstick or ASP or the use of pepper spray. Unfortunately, many officers do not carry these objects anymore since there is limited space on most belts (mine could carry more than some of the younger officers of course). A second choice would have been to keep talking and see if the situation changes. He could have waited longer, knowing other officers were on the way, even if they were 8 minutes off (report says 8 miles away).

The second mistake, even worse, is that in the report the officer says he acted against training and knew he should not shoot like that but he is better than most people and he knew he could make that shot. Two hits out of three would be understandable in that shooting but not when he is saying how good he is and that others should not shoot for the leg.

I can definitely see the attorney saying it was not justified (though I do not know their state laws on use of force). And their laws apparently require an intent that is higher than ours since he mentioned it did not rise to the level of a crime for that reason. I can also see how a better report and a little more support from the other officer on the scene could make the shooting justified. The ultimate test of reasonableness is if another officer with the experience and training of that officer would have shot. I would judge that as a 50-50 chance in this case.

"Corporal Dunn confirmed that this type of shooting is inconsistent with his training and that he would not recommend that others take this kind of a shot."

The bolded portions are really the end of the story. "Like last time..." indicates an operational pattern of exceeding training standards and common practice among his peers. Monday Morning QB'ing also includes stating that the officer was justified- he isn't. Applying deadly force means applying deadly force, not, "I can shoot his earlobe off and make him re-think..." The officer fired 3 for 2, where did round #3 go?

I'll be really blunt- yes, men on drugs and women escalate differently than a plain PO'd non-EDP male. I've both de-escalated and ramped up subjects for specific ends, and it is a fine balance. Fundamentally, you have to operate within standards of training and common practice. When we start thinking that we went out of bounds once, and everything worked out, and that now that way of doing things is a new personal standard, we run into trouble. I would note that the DA did not charge him, even though that would have been justified.

While I agree that Texas law does not govern this case and burglary of a car is not good justification for shooting a suspect in any jurisdiction, I think several things are very important:

#1. The scene is not under control. Another burglary suspect is inside the building (caught stealing? Was this really just a car burglary? Not clear to me). There is nothing stopping the 2 outside from running and harming the public. The nearest assistance is too far away.
#2. Casimiro is clearly mentally disturbed and suicidal
#3. Casimiro's partner in crime is being coerced by Casimiro (weapon in hand) to stay, putting his life in danger(hostage?)
#4. Casimiro's mentally disturbed, aggressive behavior could led her to charge the police at any time, in which case the officers would most likely fire center-of-mass
#5. Coporal Dunn clearly stated that shooting Casimiro in the leg was an attempt to save Casimiro's life. The relevant law UCA 74-2-404 is explicit that deadly force can be used to prevent the death of Casimiro.
#6. If anyone here thinks that engaging a mentally disturbed, suicidal criminal holding a bladed weapon/screw driver in hand using pepper spray or a baton is viable... I would urge them in the strongest terms to get better training. I truly don't want to see good people die because of bad training.

"Corporal Dunn confirmed that this type of shooting is inconsistent with his training and that he would not recommend that others take this kind of a shot."

The bolded portions are really the end of the story. "Like last time..." indicates an operational pattern of exceeding training standards and common practice among his peers. Monday Morning QB'ing also includes stating that the officer was justified- he isn't. Applying deadly force means applying deadly force, not, "I can shoot his earlobe off and make him re-think..." The officer fired 3 for 2, where did round #3 go?

I'll be really blunt- yes, men on drugs and women escalate differently than a plain PO'd non-EDP male. I've both de-escalated and ramped up subjects for specific ends, and it is a fine balance. Fundamentally, you have to operate within standards of training and common practice. When we start thinking that we went out of bounds once, and everything worked out, and that now that way of doing things is a new personal standard, we run into trouble. I would note that the DA did not charge him, even though that would have been justified.

Police should never be charged for doing something legal that happens to be outside their training or "common practice"

This officer had above average marksmanship skills, which is why he would not recommend others taking the shot. Round #3 went into the ground, his background was clear.

Police should never be charged for doing something legal that happens to be outside their training or "common practice"

This officer had above average marksmanship skills, which is why he would not recommend others taking the shot. Round #3 went into the ground, his background was clear.

That's the issue- shooting to wound is not legal. Regarding his marksmanship, unless he has validated this with the Department, and is a Designated Marksman, or similar, he is in violation of policy.

Please don't get me wrong- in a "common sense" world, I have little issue with what was done. However, having worked EMS, supporting the Tac team, there are waaaay too many guys who think they're "above average" because they got lucky, stepping outside of policy. More often than not, it ends badly when someone is killed or injured because of their "superiority" and risk-taking. Dunn may be a high performer, with measured extreme competence with small arms. If so, good on him. Because the totality of circumstances brought him to a negative finding in the shoot, I suspect that is not the case.

Characteristics of the subject as compared to the characteristics of the officer
- Size
- Age
- Knowledge of Capabilities
- History

Availability of assistance
- Number of officers
- Available backup units

Nature and condition of the location and surroundings
- Danger to bystanders
- Availability of weapons

Did the subject actively resist? Here's the definition:

Subjects actions- active resistance
Physically evasive movements to defeat an officer's attempt at control, including bracing, tensing, running away, or verbally signaling an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody

Possible force options
- Control holds and techniques to control the subject and situation
- Use of personal weapons in self-defense and to gain advantage over the subject
- Use of devices to secure compliance and ultimately gain control of the situation

YES

Did the subject assaultively resist?

Subjects actions- assaultive
Aggressive or combative; attempting or threatening to assault the officer or another person

Possible force options
- Use of devices and/or techniques to secure compliance and ultimately gain control of the situation
- Use of personal body weapons in self-defense and to gain advantage over the subject

I'm gonna say yes. She had a weapon in hand, refused to drop it, and waved it aggressively at the officer.